Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 34, 1907-1916, Copyright © 1993 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Pointwise topographical and longitudinal modeling of the visual field in glaucoma

JM Wild, MK Hussey, JG Flanagan and GE Trope
Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. To develop a suitable mathematical model for the description of the pointwise distribution of sensitivity across the visual field in glaucoma. METHODS. The pointwise distribution of sensitivity at any given stimulus location for any given examination was described by a joint topographical and longitudinal model. The topographical element modeled the pointwise distribution of sensitivity using a second-order polynomial function in terms of the respective stimulus coordinates whereas the longitudinal element modeled the pointwise distribution of sensitivity using multiple linear regression in terms of the sensitivity at the given location determined at one or more previous examinations. The sample comprised Humphrey Field Analyser (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) Program 30-2 and 24-2 fields from 49 patients attending a glaucoma clinic for an average of 3 years. RESULTS. The constant term of the polynomial correlated highly with the mean deviation and moderately with the pattern standard deviation. The goodness-of-fit between the modeled and the measured field increased as an exponential function of the number of previous examinations. The median R2 was 19.6% for the first examination and 83.6% for the sixth examination. The group median optimum percentage of error between the measured and modeled sensitivity at each test location was below 10% (i.e., less than 3 dB), increased with increase in eccentricity, was greater at the extremities of the superior field and varied as a function of the severity of the field loss. CONCLUSION. The model seems to be a promising way to evaluate visual field progression.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Nouri-Mahdavi, D. Hoffman, M. Ralli, and J. Caprioli Comparison of Methods to Predict Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Arch Ophthalmol, September 1, 2007; 125(9): 1176 - 1181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Nouri-Mahdavi, J. Caprioli, A. L. Coleman, D. Hoffman, and D. Gaasterland Pointwise Linear Regression for Evaluation of Visual Field Outcomes and Comparison With the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Methods Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2005; 123(2): 193 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A C Viswanathan, D P Crabb, A I McNaught, M C Westcott, D Kamal, D F Garway-Heath, F W Fitzke, and R A Hitchings Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods Br. J. Ophthalmol., June 1, 2003; 87(6): 726 - 730. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Katz A Comparison of the Pattern- and Total Deviation-Based Glaucoma Change Probability Programs Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2000; 41(5): 1012 - 1016. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Katz, N. Congdon, and D. S. Friedman Methodological Variations in Estimating Apparent Progressive Visual Field Loss in Clinical Trials of Glaucoma Treatment Arch Ophthalmol, September 1, 1999; 117(9): 1137 - 1142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Viswanathan, A. I. McNaught, D. Poinoosawmy, L. Fontana, D. P. Crabb, F. W. Fitzke, and R. A. Hitchings Severity and Stability of Glaucoma: Patient Perception Compared With Objective Measurement Arch Ophthalmol, April 1, 1999; 117(4): 450 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C Viswanathan, F. W Fitzke, and R. A Hitchings Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2 Br. J. Ophthalmol., December 1, 1997; 81(12): 1037 - 1042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]